Hi David:
Not being as technically versed as most list members, I've got a
question that may seem obvious to you, but I was hoping you could clarify:
David E Jones wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
On 17/04/2010, at 8:34 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
Scott Gray wrote:
Your style of communication leaves a lot to be desired.
And your point it? Have you realized how poorly implemented this
class is? That all registered services are always async. That
rollbacks have no chance at all of working? Such critical bugs not
In what context does this statement make sense: "That rollbacks have no
chance at all of working?". Design or implementation? I'm confused
because, don't rollbacks work now? Or maybe, didn't they work at some
point? Or, is this a very specific situation that is implied by this post?
being discovered in such low-level code make me very very worried.
My point is that if you want people to respond to your messages then you should focus on the
problem and possible solutions instead of using terms like "very very stupid" and
"very poorly implemented designs". I don't know about anyone else but when you
communicate in this manner I personally have interest in collaborating with you.
There is also a significant disconnect in Adam's email that fails to
distinguish between designs and implementations. Most of the email talks about
issues with the design, the whole implementation stuff is just thrown in there
without details. I won't even get into the distinction between requirements and
designs, but actually my guess is that is where Adam's frustration really is,
his requirements are different than the ones this design was meant to meet, but
failing to recognize that issue it just looks like a bad design and/or a bad
implementation.
This leaves the reader wondering... what is the issue here? What is it you're
trying to do that you can't? What is the proposed solution or change?
-David
